Should AT&T and Verizon do more to combat hate speech?

[Machismo]

Just like every other american. What ideology do you think won in ww2? Wasn't capitalism lol.

Thanks for admitting to being a freedom-hating fascist. I think we're done here.

[Galactis]

You are clearly indoctrinated.....

- - - Updated - - -

Given that our friends on the left wing have made it clear that White Nationalism and Right Wing extremism is on the rise, do you think companies like AT&T and Verizon should do more to combat them? Why should we allow a hateful bigot to operate a mobile phone or have access to the internet? It seems like curtailing access to these would combat this massive problem.

No! As dictated by the freedom of unlimited speech!

[ohwell]

It's funny how the left is calling for all of this censorship and banning speech they don't like and crying just as soon as it happens to them. The whole reason for free speech is so that the government can't control your speech and yet a lot of these leftists today are trying to give that power to not only the government, but also corporations. Sure let's let ATT etc decide what bigotry is and when BLM starts getting oppressed it'll be AMG BOYCOTT or when trans activists shouting "die cis scum" get action taken AMG BOYCOTT!

It's just like how I love how people are up in arms about the Pelosi Facebook issue and yet how many fake videos on Trump are circulated DAILY and nothing is done or said? Nope they believe them meanwhile nobody thought the Pelosi video was real.

[Machismo]

It's funny how the left is calling for all of this censorship and banning speech they don't like and crying just as soon as it happens to them. The whole reason for free speech is so that the government can't control your speech and yet a lot of these leftists today are trying to give that power to not only the government, but also corporations. Sure let's let ATT etc decide what bigotry is and when BLM starts getting oppressed it'll be AMG BOYCOTT or when trans activists shouting "die cis scum" get action taken AMG BOYCOTT!

It's just like how I love how people are up in arms about the Pelosi Facebook issue and yet how many fake videos on Trump are circulated DAILY and nothing is done or said? Nope they believe them meanwhile nobody thought the Pelosi video was real.

The right are the ones trying to get the government involved right now, that's the problem.

Corporations should have the power to censor on their property, just like all other private property owners.

As for the Pelosi video, people did think it was real, because they are gullible idiots. My mother happened to be one of those idiots.

[Drusin]

Great, put it in the right place, on your own website. That way, nobody will mess with it.

So, you are too lazy to do what you are requiring of others.

Well I mean, I am too lazy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but I also don't have any idea of what I'd do for a website. Just have a random wordpress website floating around out there with a bbpress forum and say have fun? I mean..sure, I'd never check it because idgaf.

If you really cared about not censoring, you would have...

So unless I do what you say I don't really care? Nah.

Apparently, there's plenty of people who would love to go to that site you want so badly, so make it.

Did you do some googling to come to that conclusion because I don't recall saying anything that would have alluded to my belief that "there's plenty of people who would love to go to that site". I also don't recall saying "I want it badly". I also don't believe we are talking about future websites we are talking about current website censoring.

Luckily, they own their own websites, and can run them how they see fit. Freedom is fucking awesome.

And I'm free voice my uncensored opinion so you're right

[Machismo]

Well I mean, I am too lazy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but I also don't have any idea of what I'd do for a website. Just have a random wordpress website floating around out there with a bbpress forum and say have fun? I mean..sure, I'd never check it because idgaf.


So unless I do what you say I don't really care? Nah.


Did you do some googling to come to that conclusion because I don't recall saying anything that would have alluded to my belief that "there's plenty of people who would love to go to that site". I also don't recall saying "I want it badly". I also don't believe we are talking about future websites we are talking about current website censoring.


And I'm free voice my uncensored opinion so you're right

There's plenty of you guys saying you want the government to control everything, and force these people to platform all speech, so clearly you guys want a free-for-all. It seems like a great opportunity for you to make money.

That way, you can leave other companies alone, and have your paradise.

It's a shame you are actually opposing freedom on this one.

[Drusin]

There's plenty of you guys saying you want the government to control everything, and force these people to platform all speech, so clearly you guys want a free-for-all. It seems like a great opportunity for you to make money.

I certainly didn't say anything about the gubment but I would think that what I want is the opposite. No one with control over what people can say.

It's a shame you are actually opposing freedom on this one.

Opposing the freedom of people trying to oppose my freedom to say what I want lol

[Jonnusthegreat]

No, they should do whatever they believe is the most profitable. They are private companies, after all. People really need to mature about hate speech. Don't like it? Suck it up and move on.

[Machismo]

I certainly didn't say anything about the gubment but I would think that what I want is the opposite. No one with control over what people can say.



Opposing the freedom of people trying to oppose my freedom to say what I want lol

So, let them be free to choose with whom to do business. Problem solved.

[breadisfunny]

Just like every other american. What ideology do you think won in ww2? Wasn't capitalism lol.

it wasn't the ability to say whatever you want whenever and wherever you want.

[Theodarzna]

Net Neutrality died and isn't coming back, so if they want to go for it.

But my serious opinion is internet companies should be a public utility simply because internet is almost required to apply for a lot of jobs, pay bills for a lot of things, handle your bank account, and so on.

They also used public funds and resources to get set up. In that sense, they are far from a private business.

That is what differentiates internet providers from youtube. If you, general you before i get infracted for an attack on someone lol, want to avoid your racist ass from getting banned from your ISP once capitalism catches up to the ISPs like it did with youtube, then message your representatives to get net neutrality or something like it put back in place.

Youtube, facebook, Twitter ect all however feed into the vast yawning chasm of data collection of the NSA. The idea that these apps aren't themselves appendages of the security state is pretty much laughable. They are hardly "Private" enterprises anymore.

Moreover, if they are making editorial decisions about content, they are not "Platforms" in a traditional sense, but publishers instead.

[Drusin]

So, let them be free to choose with whom to do business. Problem solved.

I only care about censorship, not who does business with who

[Endus]

Youtube, facebook, Twitter ect all however feed into the vast yawning chasm of data collection of the NSA. The idea that these apps aren't themselves appendages of the security state is pretty much laughable. They are hardly "Private" enterprises anymore.

They're as private as any business is. Trying to claim they're a branch of the NSA is just ridiculous nonsense.

Moreover, if they are making editorial decisions about content, they are not "Platforms" in a traditional sense, but publishers instead.

This is a claim that's been often repeated but has no basis in reality whatsoever. There is no source for this claim; it was made up and people are expected to swallow it whole without asking why.

[Machismo]

I only care about censorship, not who does business with who

Then you should be outraged that this site doesn't host explicit porn, or that a Christian website doesn't advertise gay porn or pro-ISIS propaganda. If you only care about censorship, then you are saying you want to force those sites to host that content against their will.

- - - Updated - - -

Youtube, facebook, Twitter ect all however feed into the vast yawning chasm of data collection of the NSA. The idea that these apps aren't themselves appendages of the security state is pretty much laughable. They are hardly "Private" enterprises anymore.

Moreover, if they are making editorial decisions about content, they are not "Platforms" in a traditional sense, but publishers instead.

You keep spreading that lie, it's been debunked numerous times over the last two days. You know this, so your continued attempts at repeating it mean you are a disingenuous liar.

Please show us the law that defines them as platforms.

[Drusin]

Then you should be outraged that this site doesn't host explicit porn

I'd rather all my porn be on xvideos because that's where my playlist is at. Even when I can't find anything to watch on xvideos I'll tend to stay there vs going to pornhub or xhamster because if I find something I like on another website I can't add it to my xvideos playlist

or that a Christian website doesn't advertise gay porn or pro-ISIS propaganda.

Never been to one, I don't know that they don't.

If you only care about censorship, then you are saying you want to force those sites to host that content against their will.

I don't know that they don't want to host that content. I don't know if ISIS propaganda is legal or not, I'd assume it is. I think the only illegal content to view is ChildPorn though I believe some states have beastiality laws, don't remember.

I'd like to inform you that you're going to be wasting your time trying to guilt trip me.

Oh but Drusin, what if they host revenge rape videos and videos of cats getting their heads exploded with M80s?
Don't care, I don't like the content but that doesn't mean I want the content to be gone.

I don't like any censorship but all I can do is voice my opinion and vote. I'm no militant censorship activist.

[shadowmouse]

@Theodarzna @Machismo

The platform or publisher debate has been heating up over the past five years or so. The US uses a two book model, so it isn't enough to look at just what laws appear to say (book 1 -- the law as written). One must also look at how courts have interpreted those laws through their decisions (book 2 -- case law), with special attention to how binding a case is (Federal case but different circuit for example). In both situations, discussion about intent or what the state of the law should be may also play a role.

Westlaw and Shepard's are probably overkill for forum posting, but I suggest checking Findlaw as a reasonable start. Here's one of their attempts to lay things out in broad strokes: https://technology.findlaw.com/moder...sites-and.html

[try2ki55]

Acting upon those things TOWARDS others is a whole different story

[Machismo]

@Theodarzna @Machismo

The platform or publisher debate has been heating up over the past five years or so. The US uses a two book model, so it isn't enough to look at just what laws appear to say (book 1 -- the law as written). One must also look at how courts have interpreted those laws through their decisions (book 2 -- case law), with special attention to how binding a case is (Federal case but different circuit for example). In both situations, discussion about intent or what the state of the law should be may also play a role.

Westlaw and Shepard's are probably overkill for forum posting, but I suggest checking Findlaw as a reasonable start. Here's one of their attempts to lay things out in broad strokes: https://technology.findlaw.com/moder...sites-and.html

Except those laws have been beaten to death, and shows that they are not liable for what other people post. That's it, there is no "platform versus publisher" debate, because it's not actually a thing at all.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd rather all my porn be on xvideos because that's where my playlist is at. Even when I can't find anything to watch on xvideos I'll tend to stay there vs going to pornhub or xhamster because if I find something I like on another website I can't add it to my xvideos playlist


Never been to one, I don't know that they don't.


I don't know that they don't want to host that content. I don't know if ISIS propaganda is legal or not, I'd assume it is. I think the only illegal content to view is ChildPorn though I believe some states have beastiality laws, don't remember.

I'd like to inform you that you're going to be wasting your time trying to guilt trip me.

Oh but Drusin, what if they host revenge rape videos and videos of cats getting their heads exploded with M80s?
Don't care, I don't like the content but that doesn't mean I want the content to be gone.

I don't like any censorship but all I can do is voice my opinion and vote. I'm no militant censorship activist.

You are dodging, because you know your stance is absurd. The fact that you refuse to address it directly makes my point for me.

See, you keep saying what those sites want to do,m when you specifically are saying you want to force them to not do what they want.

It's not about guilt tripping you, it's about proving you to be a hypocrite, which I just did.

[shadowmouse]

@Machismo I think I'll go with Findlaw on this one.

But what are the legal obligations that arise out of the use of social networks, both for the user and the sites themselves? The law in this area is still relatively unsettled and constantly changing, but some recent developments have created intriguing precedent, and legislation in motion promises to keep things interesting for the foreseeable future.

[Machismo]

@Machismo I think I'll go with Findlaw on this one.

And that has already been covered... it's still not a platform versus publisher thing, that's the fucking point. The obligations are specifically listed in the law itself.

Do you know what is not mentioned? anything about a "platform."

Great, you should go with Findlaw, because they don't push the platform versus publisher bullshit.